The United States is a wealthy and successful superpower, so you’d think that when it comes to life expectancy, its citizens would be in the top 10, right?  Not even close: the US currently ranks 42 among the world’s countries, a bad sign for long-term economic growth, which is strongly correlated with longevity.

The top spot in longevity rankings goes to Monaco with a life expectancy of 89.57; the bottom country, Chad, has a life expectancy of 49.44 – a striking 40 year difference (the age John Lennon was when he died).  The United States, at 79.56, is a full decade behind the top spot when it comes to life expectancy.  Why does this matter, other than the fact that death is bad?  For one thing, it affects international competitiveness.

In a paper titled the “Health and Wealth of Nations,” Harvard economist David Bloom and Queen’s University economist David Canning explain that, based on the available research, if there are “two countries that are identical in all respects, except that one has a 5 year advantage in life expectancy,” then the “real income per capita in the healthier country will grow 0.3-0.5% per year faster than in its less healthy counterpart.”

While these percentages might look small, they are actually quite significant, especially when one considers that between the years of 1965 to 1990, countries experienced an average per capita income growth of 2% per year.  When countries only have an average growth of 2%, an advantage of 0.5% is quite the boost.

Now, those numbers are based only on a 5 year longevity advantage.  What if a country had a 10, 20, or 30 year advantage?  The growth may not continue on a linear basis, but if the general rule holds – a jump in life expectancy causes an increase in economic growth per capita – then having a longer-lived population could facilitate enormous differences in economic prosperity.

This helps to explain why there is a movement among some academics and activists to urge Congress to spend more on anti-aging research in order to create what they call a “longevity dividend.”  Public health professor S. Jay Olshansky argues that slowing aging by only three to seven years would, “simultaneously postpone all fatal and nonfatal disabling diseases, produce gains in health and longevity equivalent to cures for major fatal diseases, and create scientific, medical, and economic windfalls for future generations that would be roughly equivalent in impact to the discovery of antibiotics in the 20^th century.”  Visionaries like Google’s CEO Larry Page have paid attention and one of the results was the formation of Calico, a company focused on health extension.

So why is the US so behind on longevity?  There are a number of potential reasons, three of which are gun violence, obesity, and less frequent doctor’s visits (despite high spending on health care).  There is also a strong association between education and longevity, and America’s education system has been in peril for years.

A study examining the relationship between education and longevity had this to say: “Education exerts its direct beneficial effects on health through the adoption of healthier lifestyles, better ability to cope with stress, and more effective management of chronic diseases. However, the indirect effects of education through access to more privileged social position, better-paying jobs, and higher income are also profound.”

The United States is still in a position of power, but things can change.  The failing health of a large portion of its society creates all sorts of problems and harms international competitiveness.  Longevity technologies may help to mitigate this risk, but there is no magic bullet.  While Google employees and others work on the important task of creating a longevity dividend, it would be wise for leaders to also focus on other problems such as gun violence, a lack luster education system, and growing obesity.